logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원서부지원 2014.08.14 2012가단31332
임금
Text

1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 7,756,080 won and 20% per annum from October 19, 201 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. A. D and Defendant B entered into a partnership agreement with the rate of profit distribution 5:5, and thereafter, from August 2008 to October 5, 201, Defendant D and Defendant B used four full-time workers to jointly operate F 2 points of 110:10 Dong and 105. The Plaintiff retired from office at F 2 points from office from December 28, 2009 to October 4, 201.

B. On December 4, 2012, Defendant B received a summary order of KRW 5 million from the Daegu District Court Branch Decision 2012Da10258, and filed a formal trial with the same court against the above summary order on January 24, 2014, stating that “Defendant B paid the Plaintiff wages of KRW 44,889,122 below the minimum wage amount and KRW 6,083,321 below the minimum wage amount were not paid within 14 days from the date of retirement,” and that Defendant B received a summary order of KRW 5,00,000 from the Daegu District Court Branch Branch Decision 201Da10258 and applied for formal trial against the above summary order. While the prosecution was pending, Defendant B paid the Plaintiff wages of KRW 7,756,080 below the minimum wage amount, and the prosecutor did not pay the amount below the minimum wage amount within 14 days from the date of retirement, and the above judgment was finalized on February 14, 2014.

C. Meanwhile, on October 5, 201, Defendant C, the mother of Defendant D and Defendant B, terminated a partnership agreement on four stores including F2 points that Defendant D and Defendant B operated as a partnership business until then. However, in addition to the above stores, Defendant C agreed to pay KRW 100 million to Defendant C, instead of having various rights and duties as to two stores located in the Gu and Si/Gun where D operated independently (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there has been no dispute, which is obvious to this court, Gap evidence 16, 17, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 20 each of the statements and arguments and the purport of the whole arguments.

arrow